> I don't know how I could/should evaluate how bad this is compared to
having a non-working package such as pdfsam, so I would appreciate any
feedback related to the SRU process on such decisions (maybe just having
the regressions described is good enough?).
Just whatever best effort you can manage. I don't think there's any
specific objective measure that can be used. Thank you for noting this
in the bug description. I think describing these are important because
if a user does get regressed, it does help that they can find out that
we considered their case when making a decision.
In this case I think that given no such user is known and no other
packages in the archive use libsejda-data the likelyhood of regression
in this manner is unlikely, so bumping this is the least worst option to
fix pdfsam (which surely has many more direct users).
** Changed in: libsejda-java (Ubuntu Focal)
Status: New => Fix Committed
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-focal
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1887142
Title:
pdfsam won't run, has missing and conflicting dependencies
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libhibernate-validator-java/+bug/1887142/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
